ZIP code
29206
in Forest Acres, South CarolinaPopulation 19,759
63.18/ 100
Ranked #2,872 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 9.0%)
Ranked #21 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (top 5.1%)
Ranked #1 of 47 Columbia, SC ZIPs (top 2.2%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Slow internet speeds
7.9%
in the top 1.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
77.7%
in the top 0.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.26 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›PFOA in drinking water
97.1%
in the top 5.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOA, one of the man-made “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›PFOS in drinking water
97.1%
in the top 5.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOS, one of the most common “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Child-care access
0.57 per 1,000 residents
in the top 8.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The number of child day-care services inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Transit access
3.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 9.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Tooth loss
6.1%
in the bottom 5.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
10.6%
in the bottom 7.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
13.8%
in the bottom 8.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›The read
Forest Acres, South Carolina (ZIP 29206), in overall standing, comes out in the top 9.0% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,872nd) and the top 5.1% of South Carolina (21st).
An even profile, with readings pulling both ways: modeled colon screening lies in the top 0.8% nationally, grocery registers in the top 4.7% nationally, and childcare is in the top 8.1% nationally. Transit lies in the top 9.2% nationally, modeled tooth loss registers in the bottom 5.0% nationally, and modeled cognitive disability is in the bottom 7.8% nationally. Against that, slow internet speeds lies in the top 1.7% nationally, and PFOA in drinking water registers in the top 5.4% nationally. PFOS in drinking water is in the top 5.6% nationally, and lead in tap water lies in the top 10.9% nationally.
Set within its surrounding area, slow internet speeds runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, for reference, PFOA in drinking water is one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. PFOS in drinking water is a common one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. Locally, no neighbor ranks healthier overall than this ZIP.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts. Compare it against the US, this state and the Columbia, SC metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 82%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 86%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 95%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 87%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 79%
8%
Disability
healthier than 88%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 75%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 22%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 22%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 90%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 95%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 95%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 88%
8%
Disability
healthier than 95%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 74%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 16%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 32%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 85%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 96%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 98%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 98%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 93%
8%
Disability
healthier than 98%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 74%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 24%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 28%
5%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Findings that name this ZIP
2 of our published findings list this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Above its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 80.9 ± 1.6 years. The 44 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 77.2 years — 3.7 years above them.
Ranked #468 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 22.6; chronic-disease standing 82.2 — 60 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,373 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
29204
South Carolinashares a border
Score 47.19
Similar health profile
48324
Michigan99% similar profile
Score 65.19
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 27.8% | 25.5–30.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 34.1% | 31.4–37.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.6% | 8.8–10.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 8.9% | 8.0–10.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.5% | 5.0–6.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.0% | 4.5–5.6 |
| Depression among adults | 22.7% | 20.1–25.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.6% | 9.5–12.0 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.6% | 34.5–40.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 29.5% | 25.9–33.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.9% | 2.7–3.2 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 6.1% | 4.9–7.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.5% | 6.5–8.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.5% | 76.0–80.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.7% | 79.1–84.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.9% | 88.6–91.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 77.7% | 74.4–80.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 73.5% | 70.9–75.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 80.0% | 74.6–84.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 17.5% | 15.1–20.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 8.1% | 7.1–9.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 16.1% | 14.0–18.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.5% | 30.8–38.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.8% | 12.4–15.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.5% | 12.1–15.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 11.1% | 10.0–12.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.6% | 9.5–11.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 24.9% | 22.4–27.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.4–6.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.1% | 5.5–6.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 11.3% | 10.1–12.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.8% | 2.6–3.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.4–4.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.0% | 16.6–21.6 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.0% | 7.7–10.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 5.3% | 4.4–6.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.6% | 7.4–9.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.5% | 4.8–6.2 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.3% | 25.8–32.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.8% | 5.0–6.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 61.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 26.3% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410 |
| Homeownership rate | 65.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.2% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410 |
| Foreign-born population | 3.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419 |
| Single-parent households | 45.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 18.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419 |
| Median age | 37.6 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415 |
| Median household income | $91,847 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384 |
| Median home value | $369,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383 |
| Median gross rent | $1,419 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $950 ($678–$1,545) n=343 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 80.9 yr ± 0.83 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 76.3 yr (73.2–79.9) n=389 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 0.83 years of 80.9, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured